Most of today was spent cleaning and otherwise prepping for Christmas - which it looks like will be a white one, oddly enough for Dallas. Left the TV on in the background throughout the afternoon, on Spike which was showing the original Star Wars trilogy. Twice. We jumped in partway through Return of the Jedi, made it through the original ("A New Hope"), and are now midway through The Empire Strikes Back. I guess Spike figures that Christmas movies or not, the beauty of showing these is that on a day when people are busy with so many things on and off, (a) everyone knows these well enough to jump in at any point and (b) they're instantly engrossing. Well played, Spike.
I guess I should clarify my comment that they were showing "the original Star Wars trilogy." By that I mean "Episodes IV-VI" as opposed to the "new trilogy" (a.k.a. the "not-nearly-as-good-as-the-original-but-Lucas-needed-to-put-an-addition-on-his-mansion-or-something-so-he-popped-out-another-three-Star-Wars-movies trilogy"). But of course they're not really the "original" version of those movies, they're the redone versions. Which inevitably raises three "Star Wars special edition" points in my mind (avoiding any mention of Greedo, or the obvious point that the original Star Wars was a landmark film and it would be really nice if Lucas would continue to make it available as it was originally released, as an object of study if nothing else):
1) The scene with Jabba in the Millenium Falcon's hanger is stupid, looks terrible, and adds nothing to the movies - in fact, it takes away from them. I wasn't even in the room when it aired this time, but it's very existence continues to bother me to no end.
2) Hayden Christianson now at the end of Return of the Jedi. Discuss. (For my money, it makes as much sense as any other actor being there - at least in this case it's someone else who played Anakin Skywalker....)
3) The new music at the end of RotJ. I think (based on completely unscientific anecdotal evidence) that I may be in the minority on this, but I totally prefer the original, more campy music. It sounds like what this celebration might have actually been like, rather than simply "score music" which is what it is now.
I realize that in my last post I mentioned that I would be catching up on this year's movies, and here I am posting about movies from thirty years ago. For this I can only offer the following explanation:
a) I felt like posting something, and in my defense this is the first time I've posted on Star Wars...
b) it's a busy time of year and I haven't made it to the theaters again since Precious
c) part of the reason I haven't made it to the theaters is that I've been busy playing GTA IV, which I also promised in my last post to do. So I wasn't totally lying. That game deserves a more detailed posting - which it will get - but suffice to say I'm thoroughly impressed by the complexity and completeness of the world Rockstar has delivered. And I'm glad that I've progressed far enough in the game that I actually have some "real" ways to make money (granted, most involve criminal activity, but at least I'm being hired for such activities rather than just beating people up in the streets and hoping they have a couple bucks so I can buy a hot dog, which is where I was at in the game a few nights ago).
Okay. Back to Empire Strikes Back and/or GTA IV for me. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night-of-movies-and-video-games-or-whatever-entertainment-floats-your-boat!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Back to the movies... Up first: "Precious"
With the fall semester now over, all grades turned in and paperwork completed, I'm working on catching up on all the releases I missed amidst the craziness of teaching, finishing a book, and editing a film. Yesterday we hit the nearest Regal theater for their "Twilite" pricing (not to be confused with the movie series described in an earlier post, this is the Regal/UA chain's $4.75 pricing on all movies, every day, from 4-6 p.m. Highly recommended for those who aren't big on paying $10 per ticket for first-run movies), and with a number of options starting around the time we got there, opted for the ridiculously-lengthily-titled: Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire (I kid you not, this is the movie's official name. My only explanation is that somewhere in the negotiations for the rights to the novel someone slipped in that the book and author had to appear in the title, and the film's lawyers missed this tidbit).
I had heard about this movie briefly when it was a hit at Sundance awhile back, and the reviews had been good, but this is not one of those movies that gets the $100 million marketing campaign, so was pleased to find it still at the multiplex several weeks after its release. I hope some of those who get turned away from sold-out showings of Avatar this weekend end up deciding to stick around the theater and see this film instead - it deserves the attention. (This is no slam on Avatar, which I also intend to see and for which I have high expectations - it's just that I'm betting a lot of people don't know enough about this movie but would probably like it if they saw it)
Let's start with the most obvious: the actors here, particularly Gabourey Sidibe as the title character and Mo'Nique as her mother, give amazing performances. I remember much was made of Charlize Theron's willingness to be figuratively and literally "de-beautified" for her role in Monster, which earned her an Academy Award nomination. Well, Mo'Nique takes that and pushes it 10 degrees further. I'm not sure I've EVER seen an actress let herself be portrayed as someone so physically and emotionally repugnant - the acting, camerawork (with a good portion of the movie played in tighter-than-full-face close-ups), lighting, costume design, and make-up all conspire to present one of the least movie-fied characters I've seen, including in documentaries. And she gives such a raw, realistic, and utterly unvarnished performance that you thoroughly believe that this character actually exists, and is exactly who we're supposed to think she is.
At least Mo'Nique has some juicy lines and scenes to chew on. Gabourey Sidibe, meanwhile, has the difficult role of portraying someone who is about 99% convinced that everything she's been told - she's stupid, ugly, unlovable, etc. - is true, and has retreated into herself. Yet the actress subtly conveys that there's still that 1% left who believes she can be something more, and makes us believe in this character and her drive even as she is virtually speechless and simply a punching bag for her mother's abuse during the film's first half. Hard to believe this is Sidibe's first acting role - it has none of the half-aware-of-the-camera tics of many first-time actors, she simply becomes Precious, and acts as the character would rather than as an actor portraying such a character would. Example: when she goes to the alternative school for the first time, I would think the temptation would be to let some curiosity or excitement about this new venture show, even if tentatively. Instead, what we see is a girl who's taking this step because she's hoping against hope that there might be an opportunity for her to better herself, but doesn't really believe it'll work out - she's been let down so many times, she assumes this will be a failure as well. Amazing work.
There are other actors, of course, and they all do an acceptable job, if not as noticeably as the leads. Paula Patton as Precious's teacher is excellent and makes the role into something more than just a "do-gooder" trying to help out some disadvantaged kids. Mariah Carey is serviceable as a social worker, and perhaps takes a step toward redeeming herself from Glitter; it's not that she's "bad," it's just that she doesn't have the acting chops to hold her own with the powerhouse performances of her co-stars. And Lenny Kravitz is completely unrecognizable in a small role - when the credits rolled and we saw his name, we had to think back about who he could possibly have been.
I have to mention the sound design, which is generally subtle but effective, and does have a couple of stand-out moments. Without revealing anything (since everyone should try to go out and find this movie playing), the first is the use of sound to convey what's happening in a flashback scene with Precious and her father; I'm not sure that showing the visuals here would have worked (it would have been a different movie) and loved the choice to use a few flashes (many somewhat abstract) paired with a soundtrack that tells us exactly what we need to know. The second was absolutely BRILLIANT: late in the movie, as Precious looks into a room to see who has come to visit her (I don't want to give anything away, but you'll know which scene it is when you see it), everything except the simplest Foley sounds and a hint of ambience drop out of the mix, and we're left with an almost-silence that completely focuses our attentions on the moment at hand, and the sheer reality of it. Any music, background sounds, dialogue, etc. would have made this into a "movie scene," and instead we got a moment of nothingness and everythingness (which, I realize, was as constructed as any other scene in the movie - but it effectively makes you forget it was constructed, which is the point). I was reminded of the scene in Frost/Nixon where everything except Nixon's voice falls away as he makes his confession, and we're just riveted to those words. Kudos to the sound crew here for not feeling the need to punch this up, and instead letting it play as just a breath before this confrontation.
Last bit of praise: this movie has one of the tensest scenes I've seen in a long time. Remember Hitchcock's famous line about "suspense" being that the audience knows there's a bomb under the table, but the characters don't as we're waiting for it to go off? It happens late in the film (MINOR SPOILER: when Precious returns to her mother's apartment after a prolonged absence), and what's brilliant is that it's a scene that in any other movie would be very everyday, run-of-the-mill - but because we KNOW these characters and are afraid of what could happen, I was on the edge of my seat. This one scene was more suspenseful than anything in most horror movies.
I must admit that the movie was not perfect. Director Lee Daniels does a nice job with the actors and the pacing, and this would have been a better movie if he had left it at that. Unfortuantely, the movie occasionally leaves this style with some way-too-hip-for-this-movie film tricks, like a 360-degree track around Precious as various historical video clips play on the walls all around her, or a post-modern moment where we actually see a slate with "director: Lee Daniels" on it. Perhaps in making what's a very realist, gritty, naturalistic movie, the director's ego needed to "show-off" some fancier filmwork, or perhaps he really thought that these elements helped the movie, but to this viewer they took me out of the story, reminding me it's a movie - and look what kind of cool stuff we can do in movies! Simply not necessary: trust your actors and the story. One thing about which I'm always harping on my students is to use the right cinematic techniques for the story and movie at hand. By that measuring stick, these devices were a bad choice. (for the record, I was okay with the fantasy scenes themselves, which were appropriately treated differently from the main movie - but those would have been enough, no need to invade the rest of the movie with crazy camerawork and such.)
But that's a minor quibble. It's a good movie, and I expect/hope to see some Oscar noms out of it (though I have a notoriously bad track record at the movies I think most deserve nominations getting them). Go see it. As for me, I'll be back at the theater catching up on the other new releases, and/or at home catching up on GTA IV, and will post thoughts on those as I get through them.
I had heard about this movie briefly when it was a hit at Sundance awhile back, and the reviews had been good, but this is not one of those movies that gets the $100 million marketing campaign, so was pleased to find it still at the multiplex several weeks after its release. I hope some of those who get turned away from sold-out showings of Avatar this weekend end up deciding to stick around the theater and see this film instead - it deserves the attention. (This is no slam on Avatar, which I also intend to see and for which I have high expectations - it's just that I'm betting a lot of people don't know enough about this movie but would probably like it if they saw it)
Let's start with the most obvious: the actors here, particularly Gabourey Sidibe as the title character and Mo'Nique as her mother, give amazing performances. I remember much was made of Charlize Theron's willingness to be figuratively and literally "de-beautified" for her role in Monster, which earned her an Academy Award nomination. Well, Mo'Nique takes that and pushes it 10 degrees further. I'm not sure I've EVER seen an actress let herself be portrayed as someone so physically and emotionally repugnant - the acting, camerawork (with a good portion of the movie played in tighter-than-full-face close-ups), lighting, costume design, and make-up all conspire to present one of the least movie-fied characters I've seen, including in documentaries. And she gives such a raw, realistic, and utterly unvarnished performance that you thoroughly believe that this character actually exists, and is exactly who we're supposed to think she is.
At least Mo'Nique has some juicy lines and scenes to chew on. Gabourey Sidibe, meanwhile, has the difficult role of portraying someone who is about 99% convinced that everything she's been told - she's stupid, ugly, unlovable, etc. - is true, and has retreated into herself. Yet the actress subtly conveys that there's still that 1% left who believes she can be something more, and makes us believe in this character and her drive even as she is virtually speechless and simply a punching bag for her mother's abuse during the film's first half. Hard to believe this is Sidibe's first acting role - it has none of the half-aware-of-the-camera tics of many first-time actors, she simply becomes Precious, and acts as the character would rather than as an actor portraying such a character would. Example: when she goes to the alternative school for the first time, I would think the temptation would be to let some curiosity or excitement about this new venture show, even if tentatively. Instead, what we see is a girl who's taking this step because she's hoping against hope that there might be an opportunity for her to better herself, but doesn't really believe it'll work out - she's been let down so many times, she assumes this will be a failure as well. Amazing work.
There are other actors, of course, and they all do an acceptable job, if not as noticeably as the leads. Paula Patton as Precious's teacher is excellent and makes the role into something more than just a "do-gooder" trying to help out some disadvantaged kids. Mariah Carey is serviceable as a social worker, and perhaps takes a step toward redeeming herself from Glitter; it's not that she's "bad," it's just that she doesn't have the acting chops to hold her own with the powerhouse performances of her co-stars. And Lenny Kravitz is completely unrecognizable in a small role - when the credits rolled and we saw his name, we had to think back about who he could possibly have been.
I have to mention the sound design, which is generally subtle but effective, and does have a couple of stand-out moments. Without revealing anything (since everyone should try to go out and find this movie playing), the first is the use of sound to convey what's happening in a flashback scene with Precious and her father; I'm not sure that showing the visuals here would have worked (it would have been a different movie) and loved the choice to use a few flashes (many somewhat abstract) paired with a soundtrack that tells us exactly what we need to know. The second was absolutely BRILLIANT: late in the movie, as Precious looks into a room to see who has come to visit her (I don't want to give anything away, but you'll know which scene it is when you see it), everything except the simplest Foley sounds and a hint of ambience drop out of the mix, and we're left with an almost-silence that completely focuses our attentions on the moment at hand, and the sheer reality of it. Any music, background sounds, dialogue, etc. would have made this into a "movie scene," and instead we got a moment of nothingness and everythingness (which, I realize, was as constructed as any other scene in the movie - but it effectively makes you forget it was constructed, which is the point). I was reminded of the scene in Frost/Nixon where everything except Nixon's voice falls away as he makes his confession, and we're just riveted to those words. Kudos to the sound crew here for not feeling the need to punch this up, and instead letting it play as just a breath before this confrontation.
Last bit of praise: this movie has one of the tensest scenes I've seen in a long time. Remember Hitchcock's famous line about "suspense" being that the audience knows there's a bomb under the table, but the characters don't as we're waiting for it to go off? It happens late in the film (MINOR SPOILER: when Precious returns to her mother's apartment after a prolonged absence), and what's brilliant is that it's a scene that in any other movie would be very everyday, run-of-the-mill - but because we KNOW these characters and are afraid of what could happen, I was on the edge of my seat. This one scene was more suspenseful than anything in most horror movies.
I must admit that the movie was not perfect. Director Lee Daniels does a nice job with the actors and the pacing, and this would have been a better movie if he had left it at that. Unfortuantely, the movie occasionally leaves this style with some way-too-hip-for-this-movie film tricks, like a 360-degree track around Precious as various historical video clips play on the walls all around her, or a post-modern moment where we actually see a slate with "director: Lee Daniels" on it. Perhaps in making what's a very realist, gritty, naturalistic movie, the director's ego needed to "show-off" some fancier filmwork, or perhaps he really thought that these elements helped the movie, but to this viewer they took me out of the story, reminding me it's a movie - and look what kind of cool stuff we can do in movies! Simply not necessary: trust your actors and the story. One thing about which I'm always harping on my students is to use the right cinematic techniques for the story and movie at hand. By that measuring stick, these devices were a bad choice. (for the record, I was okay with the fantasy scenes themselves, which were appropriately treated differently from the main movie - but those would have been enough, no need to invade the rest of the movie with crazy camerawork and such.)
But that's a minor quibble. It's a good movie, and I expect/hope to see some Oscar noms out of it (though I have a notoriously bad track record at the movies I think most deserve nominations getting them). Go see it. As for me, I'll be back at the theater catching up on the other new releases, and/or at home catching up on GTA IV, and will post thoughts on those as I get through them.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
great singing, unjudgmental judging on "The Sing-Off"
We've been watching "The Sing-Off" on NBC this week. And in fact after the first episode I actually recommended to my spring sound design class that they try to catch an episode, to get a sense of how the a capella groups build up a sonic environment using only their voices - as well as some of the comments from the judges, which tackle the same issues that sound designers do: rhythm, dynamics, harmony, mixing, etc.
So what happens after this? The judges drop the ball.
We had already learned that Nicole Scherzinger (from the Pussycat Dolls, which should have been a tip-off) was completely useless; after one episode of wasting our time listening to her pointless vacuous praising of each group, we learned to just fast-forward through her commentaries. But in the first couple episodes Ben (Folds) and Shawn Stockman (formerly of Boyz II Men) gave productive, insightful suggestions and notes about both what worked and what didn't.
Tonight, all three judges chose to just effusively praise each performance instead of offering thoughtful, constructive critiques. BOOOORING.
Let's be clear: all the groups performing here are amazing, and it's not that I want to see them lambasted or humiliated. I'm not a big fan of Simon Cowell-style ripping into contestants, unless they clearly deserve it - and none of these groups do. But the role of judges is to judge - they're eliminating groups each night, so they need to distinguish WHY some performances are better than others, and for those who remain, what they need to do to improve. When my students show their film projects in class, it would be easy to just blindly praise the things that work in each - but this would do the students a disservice; they deserve to hear what they're doing well AND what they're not, since both will help them progress as filmmakers. The same is true here: the judges would better serve the singers by praising what's good and making suggestions to improve what's not.
I can't help but think this is symptomatic of the larger problem in current American society that except for politicians and pundits, who often seem to do nothing other THAN criticize each other, no one wants to criticize anyone - we're all special, we're all perfect, and everyone's great. The problem is, that's just not the case: we all have room to improve, and constructive criticism helps us figure out how to do so - IF we're willing to listen and act on those comments. So in the interests of moving toward a society where we all be a little less hyper-sensitive / ultra-PC and tell it like it is, let's see some more honesty from the judges on "The Sing-Off" - tell the groups what they're doing well and what they're not.
Oh, and one more note: Nota is amazing.
So what happens after this? The judges drop the ball.
We had already learned that Nicole Scherzinger (from the Pussycat Dolls, which should have been a tip-off) was completely useless; after one episode of wasting our time listening to her pointless vacuous praising of each group, we learned to just fast-forward through her commentaries. But in the first couple episodes Ben (Folds) and Shawn Stockman (formerly of Boyz II Men) gave productive, insightful suggestions and notes about both what worked and what didn't.
Tonight, all three judges chose to just effusively praise each performance instead of offering thoughtful, constructive critiques. BOOOORING.
Let's be clear: all the groups performing here are amazing, and it's not that I want to see them lambasted or humiliated. I'm not a big fan of Simon Cowell-style ripping into contestants, unless they clearly deserve it - and none of these groups do. But the role of judges is to judge - they're eliminating groups each night, so they need to distinguish WHY some performances are better than others, and for those who remain, what they need to do to improve. When my students show their film projects in class, it would be easy to just blindly praise the things that work in each - but this would do the students a disservice; they deserve to hear what they're doing well AND what they're not, since both will help them progress as filmmakers. The same is true here: the judges would better serve the singers by praising what's good and making suggestions to improve what's not.
I can't help but think this is symptomatic of the larger problem in current American society that except for politicians and pundits, who often seem to do nothing other THAN criticize each other, no one wants to criticize anyone - we're all special, we're all perfect, and everyone's great. The problem is, that's just not the case: we all have room to improve, and constructive criticism helps us figure out how to do so - IF we're willing to listen and act on those comments. So in the interests of moving toward a society where we all be a little less hyper-sensitive / ultra-PC and tell it like it is, let's see some more honesty from the judges on "The Sing-Off" - tell the groups what they're doing well and what they're not.
Oh, and one more note: Nota is amazing.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
TV (at dinner) has been good to me this week
It's now the final week of the fall semester, meaning most of my time is devoted to grading, exams, helping students with final projects - and I'm trying to finish up post on a short in time for a festival deadline as well. So I haven't had time to catch many movies. I have, however, caught a show a night this week (usually while eating dinner, which I know you're not supposed to do, but if not I'd be even further behind on my Tivo than usual); here's my quick hits:
1. Wednesday: "Glee" fall finale. Excellent. Sure, the fact that these kids (SPOILERS AHEAD) can put together a whole new show in an hour with no rehearsal space or anything is completely ridiculous, but what the heck, it's TV (and it's not like the version of show choir portrayed in the show has been any more realistic in any other episode). This was well-structured, with real drama played out in an interesting way, and a LOT of the characters had important progressions in their arcs without it feeling forced or untrue to what we had known about them to this point. Even Quinn has started to come together into a more consistent character, which was a criticism of mine earlier this season. Most importantly, I've been yelling at my TV for weeks that Will needs to lose Terri and go after Emma - and as the very cool "My Life Would Suck Without You" (love the song) montage came to an end and they kissed, I actually clapped. This is how you end your fall season with a bang. Don't know what they have planned for the spring, but I can guarantee my eyes will be glued to whatever it is.
2. Tuesday: "The Biggest Loser" season finale. I had pretty much given up on reality TV after season 2 or 3 of "Survivor," and haven't seen much since then to change my mind - until my wife got me hooked on this show. What I love is that it really seems to care about it's characters - and we do too. It's a mark of the show's success that when every season starts I think it's not going to be as good as the last one because I don't know the people, yet as it progresses I really come to care for them all. It was a real treat at the finale to see all the eliminated contestants back, and just how far they had all come. No better way to say it: this is the rare competition show where EVERYONE is a winner, and all of them really support each other in their efforts to lose weight. And let's be honest, with obesity an epidemic in the U.S. (I recall reading earlier this year that childhood obesity rates are finally leveling off after rising for years - but doctors think it's not because we're improving childhood health, it's that we've literally reached the point where EVERY child who has any predisposition to be overweight IS), a show that encourages people to take control of their lives and get healthy, AND shows it can be done through diet and exercise rather than surgery, is a worthy cause. Love the idea of the show, my one wish for its improvement is that (for the love of God) it would PLEASE tighten up the editing. I'm sure there's enough drama to fill its whole time slot without drawing the weigh-ins out so long and without repeating as much as a minute of material every time they come back from a commercial. Here's a tip, producers: we're fast-forwarding through this B.S., give us more show!
3. Monday: Ravens at Packers, Monday Night Football. Really *should* have been working Monday night, but made sure I got home in time for the game. I'm from Wisconsin and my wife's from Cleveland, so needless to say we were both rooting for the Pack and against the Ravens (for leaving Cleveland). This season of MNF may have the worst commentators in the history of commentating, if it wasn't that I wanted to hear the ref's calls during the game, I would have turned off the sound entirely and put on something less obnoxious, like static. When their comments weren't factually wrong (getting players names wrong, contradicting themselves, misusing statistics) they were uninsightful, annoying, and/or boring. Luckily the commentators' ineptitude was overshadowed by the Packers, who put on a good show and I think continue to demonstrate that they're improving as the season goes on. It felt like the won by even more than the final score - aside from a bizarre couple of minutes in the third, they seemed to dominate Baltimore pretty much the whole way through. Memo to both teams: there are refs watching these games, and they will call penalties when you commit them. I know both teams thought a couple of the calls were questionable afterward and that the game was called "too tight", but from my vantage point it was a well-called game, it's not the referees fault that your teams played sloppily. This is my biggest worry headed into the final quarter of the season: the one area of the Packers' game that has not improved as the season has gone on is their sloppy play and large numbers of penalties called. Let's hope they can get their act together or eventually that's going to catch up with them in a game.
Looking forward to next week, when the semester will be over and I can catch up on all the shows I'm STILL behind on (including almost the entire season of Nip/Tuck, several episodes of Always Sunny, and one or two of about twenty others). Now back to work....
1. Wednesday: "Glee" fall finale. Excellent. Sure, the fact that these kids (SPOILERS AHEAD) can put together a whole new show in an hour with no rehearsal space or anything is completely ridiculous, but what the heck, it's TV (and it's not like the version of show choir portrayed in the show has been any more realistic in any other episode). This was well-structured, with real drama played out in an interesting way, and a LOT of the characters had important progressions in their arcs without it feeling forced or untrue to what we had known about them to this point. Even Quinn has started to come together into a more consistent character, which was a criticism of mine earlier this season. Most importantly, I've been yelling at my TV for weeks that Will needs to lose Terri and go after Emma - and as the very cool "My Life Would Suck Without You" (love the song) montage came to an end and they kissed, I actually clapped. This is how you end your fall season with a bang. Don't know what they have planned for the spring, but I can guarantee my eyes will be glued to whatever it is.
2. Tuesday: "The Biggest Loser" season finale. I had pretty much given up on reality TV after season 2 or 3 of "Survivor," and haven't seen much since then to change my mind - until my wife got me hooked on this show. What I love is that it really seems to care about it's characters - and we do too. It's a mark of the show's success that when every season starts I think it's not going to be as good as the last one because I don't know the people, yet as it progresses I really come to care for them all. It was a real treat at the finale to see all the eliminated contestants back, and just how far they had all come. No better way to say it: this is the rare competition show where EVERYONE is a winner, and all of them really support each other in their efforts to lose weight. And let's be honest, with obesity an epidemic in the U.S. (I recall reading earlier this year that childhood obesity rates are finally leveling off after rising for years - but doctors think it's not because we're improving childhood health, it's that we've literally reached the point where EVERY child who has any predisposition to be overweight IS), a show that encourages people to take control of their lives and get healthy, AND shows it can be done through diet and exercise rather than surgery, is a worthy cause. Love the idea of the show, my one wish for its improvement is that (for the love of God) it would PLEASE tighten up the editing. I'm sure there's enough drama to fill its whole time slot without drawing the weigh-ins out so long and without repeating as much as a minute of material every time they come back from a commercial. Here's a tip, producers: we're fast-forwarding through this B.S., give us more show!
3. Monday: Ravens at Packers, Monday Night Football. Really *should* have been working Monday night, but made sure I got home in time for the game. I'm from Wisconsin and my wife's from Cleveland, so needless to say we were both rooting for the Pack and against the Ravens (for leaving Cleveland). This season of MNF may have the worst commentators in the history of commentating, if it wasn't that I wanted to hear the ref's calls during the game, I would have turned off the sound entirely and put on something less obnoxious, like static. When their comments weren't factually wrong (getting players names wrong, contradicting themselves, misusing statistics) they were uninsightful, annoying, and/or boring. Luckily the commentators' ineptitude was overshadowed by the Packers, who put on a good show and I think continue to demonstrate that they're improving as the season goes on. It felt like the won by even more than the final score - aside from a bizarre couple of minutes in the third, they seemed to dominate Baltimore pretty much the whole way through. Memo to both teams: there are refs watching these games, and they will call penalties when you commit them. I know both teams thought a couple of the calls were questionable afterward and that the game was called "too tight", but from my vantage point it was a well-called game, it's not the referees fault that your teams played sloppily. This is my biggest worry headed into the final quarter of the season: the one area of the Packers' game that has not improved as the season has gone on is their sloppy play and large numbers of penalties called. Let's hope they can get their act together or eventually that's going to catch up with them in a game.
Looking forward to next week, when the semester will be over and I can catch up on all the shows I'm STILL behind on (including almost the entire season of Nip/Tuck, several episodes of Always Sunny, and one or two of about twenty others). Now back to work....
Thursday, December 3, 2009
"New Moon" is better than "Twilight"... not that that's a ringing endorsement
(full disclosure: I have read all the Twilight books and really enjoyed them, though they're not as addictive as, say, the Harry Potter books or the Ender's Game series)
Last year's Twilight was more or less a debacle. The casting was strong top to bottom, the music was effective, and the production design was fine (though a bit over the top for my tastes), but the rest of it was a disaster.
With that as a baseline, New Moon marks a significant improvement in the series - the cinematography, editing, special effects, and design are all very good, and the music and casting continue to be good (though as a bit of an audiophile, I couldn't help but notice some major missed opportunities in the sound design, particularly with respect to the use of surround.... but that's another story). Suffice to say, the quality of the filmmaking craft is markedly improved. Whether that should be attributed to the crew overall (virtually all the crew heads changed, including the director), the bigger budget, the fact that it's a sequel and everyone has a better idea what they're doing now, or some combination thereof is difficult to say.
Though the first film had many failings, it was clear that the single biggest problem was the screenplay, and many of the other problems stemmed from that (okay, not the effects, but a lot of the other stuff). So what's absolutely bizarre is that the one major crew position that WASN'T replaced was the screenwriter... and unsurprisingly the script was the element that dragged down New Moon despite the improvements made in other areas.
I can sort-of forgive the jumpiness and the fact that it assumes you're intimately familiar with the books and will fill in all the plot and character holes that are left out; the target audience for this has read the books - probably multiple times - and may be happy just to see their favorite scenes projected onscreen, even if I personally think a movie should be able to be enjoyed on its own. But even aside from that, there are some major flaws in the structure, characterization, dialogue, etc. And, of course, the screenplay is the foundation for any movie, meaning when that's not working it's really difficult to make a good movie out of it.
Certainly the producers and directors of the first two films bear some responsibility for making sure the script gets up to the level it needs to be, and both Hardwicke and Weitz dropped the ball here. And the screenwriter herself deserves no small share of the blame, as do the producers who wanted to rush New Moon into production perhaps without adequate time for rewrites on the script. What surprises me is that Stephanie Meyer has let her books be treated like this. Being a novice to the movie biz prior to the first film, it's no surprise that she was happy just to get the chance to have her work made into a feature film, and was willing to trust the "professionals" to do it right. But after it was clear that they didn't know how to translate her work into a screenplay, I don't understand why she didn't use her power as the ultimate authority of "the Twilight Saga" to demand a better script. Maybe she hasn't worked as a screenwriter, but she has demonstrated she understands character and plot - why not let her take a stab at the adaptation? She would be hard-pressed to do worse.
I'm big on medium-specificity, and so I'm not saying that the movie should be exactly like the book or that they should be afraid to change anything: the two forms of media have different strengths and weaknesses and should exploit those. The Lord of the Rings series is a good example - the filmmakers took the general plot of the book and altered story, characters, etc. as needed to make a good movie, recognizing that an exact translation of the books would not necessarily work for a film. Adapting a book requires realizing what to keep, what to change, and what to discard. Let's hope the Twilight franchise can do better in all three of these for the final two books.
I should note a couple positives. Taylor Lautner gives a very strong performance, and is worth looking out for in future roles (as well as in the rest of this series). I think Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson may be good actors - I've liked them in the limited other things I've seen them in - and I think they do what they can with the material they're given. But neither is given much to do here, nor much range of emotion to express. And for those who haven't seen it already in the trailer, there's at least one really amazing shot, which is of Jacob's midair transformation as he leaps over Bella - indeed, the effects throughout are convincing, head-and-shoulders above what we got in the first film.
I realize these films are essentially criticism-proof, as Weitz has acknowledged, and they'll make money regardless of their quality. But for such a profitable franchise, couldn't they spend a few bucks on a decent writer? And shouldn't Meyer be more protective of her characters and insist on a decent script? Too many Twilight fanatics are happy to see anything with Bella, Jacob, and Edward in it, as the box office grosses for New Moon illustrate. That's not looking down on them - I consider myself a fan. I just wish more of them would demand that Summit make movies worthy of the books instead of letting themselves be exploited by paying to see second-rate adaptations over and over....
Last year's Twilight was more or less a debacle. The casting was strong top to bottom, the music was effective, and the production design was fine (though a bit over the top for my tastes), but the rest of it was a disaster.
With that as a baseline, New Moon marks a significant improvement in the series - the cinematography, editing, special effects, and design are all very good, and the music and casting continue to be good (though as a bit of an audiophile, I couldn't help but notice some major missed opportunities in the sound design, particularly with respect to the use of surround.... but that's another story). Suffice to say, the quality of the filmmaking craft is markedly improved. Whether that should be attributed to the crew overall (virtually all the crew heads changed, including the director), the bigger budget, the fact that it's a sequel and everyone has a better idea what they're doing now, or some combination thereof is difficult to say.
Though the first film had many failings, it was clear that the single biggest problem was the screenplay, and many of the other problems stemmed from that (okay, not the effects, but a lot of the other stuff). So what's absolutely bizarre is that the one major crew position that WASN'T replaced was the screenwriter... and unsurprisingly the script was the element that dragged down New Moon despite the improvements made in other areas.
I can sort-of forgive the jumpiness and the fact that it assumes you're intimately familiar with the books and will fill in all the plot and character holes that are left out; the target audience for this has read the books - probably multiple times - and may be happy just to see their favorite scenes projected onscreen, even if I personally think a movie should be able to be enjoyed on its own. But even aside from that, there are some major flaws in the structure, characterization, dialogue, etc. And, of course, the screenplay is the foundation for any movie, meaning when that's not working it's really difficult to make a good movie out of it.
Certainly the producers and directors of the first two films bear some responsibility for making sure the script gets up to the level it needs to be, and both Hardwicke and Weitz dropped the ball here. And the screenwriter herself deserves no small share of the blame, as do the producers who wanted to rush New Moon into production perhaps without adequate time for rewrites on the script. What surprises me is that Stephanie Meyer has let her books be treated like this. Being a novice to the movie biz prior to the first film, it's no surprise that she was happy just to get the chance to have her work made into a feature film, and was willing to trust the "professionals" to do it right. But after it was clear that they didn't know how to translate her work into a screenplay, I don't understand why she didn't use her power as the ultimate authority of "the Twilight Saga" to demand a better script. Maybe she hasn't worked as a screenwriter, but she has demonstrated she understands character and plot - why not let her take a stab at the adaptation? She would be hard-pressed to do worse.
I'm big on medium-specificity, and so I'm not saying that the movie should be exactly like the book or that they should be afraid to change anything: the two forms of media have different strengths and weaknesses and should exploit those. The Lord of the Rings series is a good example - the filmmakers took the general plot of the book and altered story, characters, etc. as needed to make a good movie, recognizing that an exact translation of the books would not necessarily work for a film. Adapting a book requires realizing what to keep, what to change, and what to discard. Let's hope the Twilight franchise can do better in all three of these for the final two books.
I should note a couple positives. Taylor Lautner gives a very strong performance, and is worth looking out for in future roles (as well as in the rest of this series). I think Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson may be good actors - I've liked them in the limited other things I've seen them in - and I think they do what they can with the material they're given. But neither is given much to do here, nor much range of emotion to express. And for those who haven't seen it already in the trailer, there's at least one really amazing shot, which is of Jacob's midair transformation as he leaps over Bella - indeed, the effects throughout are convincing, head-and-shoulders above what we got in the first film.
I realize these films are essentially criticism-proof, as Weitz has acknowledged, and they'll make money regardless of their quality. But for such a profitable franchise, couldn't they spend a few bucks on a decent writer? And shouldn't Meyer be more protective of her characters and insist on a decent script? Too many Twilight fanatics are happy to see anything with Bella, Jacob, and Edward in it, as the box office grosses for New Moon illustrate. That's not looking down on them - I consider myself a fan. I just wish more of them would demand that Summit make movies worthy of the books instead of letting themselves be exploited by paying to see second-rate adaptations over and over....
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Changes on "House"?
I've enjoyed House since I started watching it midway through the first season. I like the medical mysteries and the way they use those to structure a show that's really about the characters (unlike, say, Law & Order, which really IS about the case each week, or even CSI which is more of a balance but seems to skew heavy toward the cases). Hugh Laurie has won some well-deserved accolades for the show and he is surrounded by a talented supporting cast that keeps things interesting.
As those thoughts might indicate, the show's foundation is its strong writing and acting. But that doesn't mean the other elements are poorly done - quite to the contrary, it's always been well-directed and shot, and some of the cinematography is quite striking.
Which is why the major shift in the show's visual style over the past two weeks has been so disruptive. I don't know if it's a by-product of a change in directors or DPs, or a conscious choice by the show-runners, but the way the past two episodes of House have been shot is markedly different than what we're used to. The patient interactions haven't changed much, but the shots dealing with the principal characters, whether they're involved in general conversation or conducting a "differential diagnosis" around a conference table, have all gotten noticeably closer and tighter. Gone are the wide shots of a whole room, two- and three-shots of small groups, and even medium close singles. In their place are increasing number of solo shots, with tight facial framings - close-ups of House himself are the worst offenders, as it appears there is now some law that no shot of him can be wider than the top of his head to the bottom of his chin. In the 11/16 episode in particular, this excessive use of close singles at times made it difficult to tell who was talking to whom, and where people were in the space (one scene at the conference table was particularly confusing, since no two people were ever shown in the same shot). I had thought maybe this was an anomaly, but last night's episode offered more of the same...
In general, I'm not opposed to tight framings or the fragmentation of space - as I've written in some of my scholarly work (including my upcoming book Beyond Dolby - shameless plug), these are common trends in the cinema tied to a number of factors including surround sound, movement of crew between television and film, etc. What I don't understand here is the logic behind messing with what had been a very effective, if not necessarily "in-your-face," approach to a successful show - for no apparent reason. I simply don't think the new style is as good a fit for House as the old one, since it overemphasizes faces and the characters and upsets the show's careful balance of medical mystery with character drama (one might argue that the heavy use of single shots in the 11/16 episode was to emphasize the emotional distance between all the characters at the time. Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why this strategy was continued, or what that had to do with the ridiculously tight CUs of House in that episode or the next - certainly characters can be split up through framing even in medium shots).
Here's hoping the makers of House get this out of their system and return to what works: keep the cranky title character, snappy dialogue, and bizarre cases - just stop showing all that stuff from quite so close.
As those thoughts might indicate, the show's foundation is its strong writing and acting. But that doesn't mean the other elements are poorly done - quite to the contrary, it's always been well-directed and shot, and some of the cinematography is quite striking.
Which is why the major shift in the show's visual style over the past two weeks has been so disruptive. I don't know if it's a by-product of a change in directors or DPs, or a conscious choice by the show-runners, but the way the past two episodes of House have been shot is markedly different than what we're used to. The patient interactions haven't changed much, but the shots dealing with the principal characters, whether they're involved in general conversation or conducting a "differential diagnosis" around a conference table, have all gotten noticeably closer and tighter. Gone are the wide shots of a whole room, two- and three-shots of small groups, and even medium close singles. In their place are increasing number of solo shots, with tight facial framings - close-ups of House himself are the worst offenders, as it appears there is now some law that no shot of him can be wider than the top of his head to the bottom of his chin. In the 11/16 episode in particular, this excessive use of close singles at times made it difficult to tell who was talking to whom, and where people were in the space (one scene at the conference table was particularly confusing, since no two people were ever shown in the same shot). I had thought maybe this was an anomaly, but last night's episode offered more of the same...
In general, I'm not opposed to tight framings or the fragmentation of space - as I've written in some of my scholarly work (including my upcoming book Beyond Dolby - shameless plug), these are common trends in the cinema tied to a number of factors including surround sound, movement of crew between television and film, etc. What I don't understand here is the logic behind messing with what had been a very effective, if not necessarily "in-your-face," approach to a successful show - for no apparent reason. I simply don't think the new style is as good a fit for House as the old one, since it overemphasizes faces and the characters and upsets the show's careful balance of medical mystery with character drama (one might argue that the heavy use of single shots in the 11/16 episode was to emphasize the emotional distance between all the characters at the time. Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why this strategy was continued, or what that had to do with the ridiculously tight CUs of House in that episode or the next - certainly characters can be split up through framing even in medium shots).
Here's hoping the makers of House get this out of their system and return to what works: keep the cranky title character, snappy dialogue, and bizarre cases - just stop showing all that stuff from quite so close.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Fight Club on Blu-Ray
Just a quick post: had the chance to checkout the new 10th anniversary Blu-Ray release of Fight Club (one of a slew of amazing films from 1999 that are on my favorites list). Transfer and sound look good - picture in particular has a lot of detail, and you can see how grainy the original film was (note this is not video noise, but rather the film grain itself).
This disc has a really cool idea for a feature - there's a section on the sound design (nice interview with Ren Klyce) that lets you change the mixing on a couple short segments of the movie. Specifically, you can change the relative mix of "real-world" and "Jack's POV" sounds, as well as the relative volume of the various 5.1 channels. The problem is that this would be a great idea on a computer where you can click a mouse in various areas to change things, but simply doesn't offer a very user-friendly experience with a standard Blu-Ray player remote - which of course is what most people will access this with. It's exciting to be in the "expansion" phase of a new media form like this one, where people are coming up with new ways to use it - but this example also highlights the fact that those developing content for new media need to be cognizant not just of what those media can do, but also of how people actually use them. In this case, while I like the idea in the abstract, I'm not sure a format accessed primarily with a DVD player remote is the right venue for it.
This disc has a really cool idea for a feature - there's a section on the sound design (nice interview with Ren Klyce) that lets you change the mixing on a couple short segments of the movie. Specifically, you can change the relative mix of "real-world" and "Jack's POV" sounds, as well as the relative volume of the various 5.1 channels. The problem is that this would be a great idea on a computer where you can click a mouse in various areas to change things, but simply doesn't offer a very user-friendly experience with a standard Blu-Ray player remote - which of course is what most people will access this with. It's exciting to be in the "expansion" phase of a new media form like this one, where people are coming up with new ways to use it - but this example also highlights the fact that those developing content for new media need to be cognizant not just of what those media can do, but also of how people actually use them. In this case, while I like the idea in the abstract, I'm not sure a format accessed primarily with a DVD player remote is the right venue for it.
The Police on Glee
I'm a longtime huge fan of The Police - having unfortunately not gotten into them until after their breakup in the 80s, I was waiting seemingly forever for the chance to hear them perform, and finally got my wish last year when I had the chance to see them on their reunion tour. They were amazing, found just the right way to keep the familiarity of the songs we all know but change them up enough to make it a different experience hearing the live performances. Stewart Copeland in particular was a great performer, running around, up and down levels of the stage playing all manner of percussion instruments. The only downer was the audience - particularly the group of idiots all around us who talked the whole time and literally couldn't as a group spend more than 2 minutes all in their seats without someone leaving to get more beers or use the restroom. I had sort of gotten used to that sort of inconsiderate behavior living in Dallas, but it was really distracting when I was finally having the chance to see a band I had waited literally decades to see. But I digress....
All this is a roundabout way to getting to saying that I eagerly awaited hearing "Don't Stand So Close to Me" (my favorite song by The Police) in this week's Glee after it was played up in the promos, and it didn't disappoint. A little uncertain about the mash-up at the start, but it ended up working for me, even if I would've liked to hear a little more of the song (though I'm not sure the lyrics were quite what Schu wanted to say - since in the full song the teacher actually DOES seem to have a relationship with the girl). Well performed, and I even liked the way they changed up the chorus melody a bit.
Overall I think this was one of the best episodes since the pilot, with well-integrated songs (and a lot of them!) and storyline. I was especially happy to see Emma return - albeit in a relatively small way - given that she had been minimal the past few episodes (and completely MIA in last week's) and is probably my favorite character. This show keeps surprising me, and I mean that in a good way - it's always a joy to watch (and hear!) and the better we know the characters the more engaging it gets (since it has taken awhile to really start developing ALL the characters in the large ensemble). My one beef is with the Quinn character, who is wildly inconsistent based on the needs of any particular story arc: let's get her personality straightened out some, please?
All this is a roundabout way to getting to saying that I eagerly awaited hearing "Don't Stand So Close to Me" (my favorite song by The Police) in this week's Glee after it was played up in the promos, and it didn't disappoint. A little uncertain about the mash-up at the start, but it ended up working for me, even if I would've liked to hear a little more of the song (though I'm not sure the lyrics were quite what Schu wanted to say - since in the full song the teacher actually DOES seem to have a relationship with the girl). Well performed, and I even liked the way they changed up the chorus melody a bit.
Overall I think this was one of the best episodes since the pilot, with well-integrated songs (and a lot of them!) and storyline. I was especially happy to see Emma return - albeit in a relatively small way - given that she had been minimal the past few episodes (and completely MIA in last week's) and is probably my favorite character. This show keeps surprising me, and I mean that in a good way - it's always a joy to watch (and hear!) and the better we know the characters the more engaging it gets (since it has taken awhile to really start developing ALL the characters in the large ensemble). My one beef is with the Quinn character, who is wildly inconsistent based on the needs of any particular story arc: let's get her personality straightened out some, please?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"2012" is just what you'd expect it to be.
Caught the new pic from Roland Emmerich at a matinee on Friday. Yes, it's as ridiculous as you'd guess, but if you're going to see this movie you'll get what you wanted from it. It's bloated at two-and-a-half-plus hours, and its woeful attempts to address "serious" issues fail miserably (Really? You're going to put in a big speech at the end about how everyone - rich or poor, powerful politician or average citizen - is worth saving, AFTER spending two hours telling us only to care about a few select characters, and treating the thousands of deaths around them as a background effect to impress us?). On the other hand, I found myself surprisingly unconcerned about this blatant philosophical disconnect, since the movie is as much a cartoon as anything else. When you have a limo cornering like a Ferrari, and the heroes always literally seconds ahead of impending doom (as my mind wandered, I found myself wondering if there would have even been a movie had Cusack woken two minutes earlier at the start of the movie, since then he would have had a comfortable two minute lead on the various phenomena he was outracing the rest of themovie).
Yet the effects are impressive, and if you go in looking for nothing more than seeing the world blow up, it's pretty cool. I like the choice of John Cusack - a talented actor but not an A-list star - as the hero; he plays the role perfectly well, and the filmmakers recognize that we're going to this movie to see the effects, not the actors. The scipt... well, not so much, it's treated as a necessary evil. And boy IS it evil - while I'm not quite sure it's "necessary." I suggest next time that Emmerich forgo a plot entirely: he's good at destroying stuff, not so good at emotion or character. Instead of giving us 150 minutes where half of it is painful to even try to watch, how about a solid 80 minutes of great effects and then let us out of the theater before our butts hurt from sitting too long?
Oh, and one last note: I'm pretty sure that however big solar flares got, this would not be enough to change the fundamental nature of elementary particles like neutrinos. I'll add this to The Saint and Chain Reaction on the "most ludicrous attempts to justify crazy plots with pseudo-science" list.
Yet the effects are impressive, and if you go in looking for nothing more than seeing the world blow up, it's pretty cool. I like the choice of John Cusack - a talented actor but not an A-list star - as the hero; he plays the role perfectly well, and the filmmakers recognize that we're going to this movie to see the effects, not the actors. The scipt... well, not so much, it's treated as a necessary evil. And boy IS it evil - while I'm not quite sure it's "necessary." I suggest next time that Emmerich forgo a plot entirely: he's good at destroying stuff, not so good at emotion or character. Instead of giving us 150 minutes where half of it is painful to even try to watch, how about a solid 80 minutes of great effects and then let us out of the theater before our butts hurt from sitting too long?
Oh, and one last note: I'm pretty sure that however big solar flares got, this would not be enough to change the fundamental nature of elementary particles like neutrinos. I'll add this to The Saint and Chain Reaction on the "most ludicrous attempts to justify crazy plots with pseudo-science" list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)